Now in this game of smoke and mirrors every side paints their own picture of what happened on 7 October 2008.

In this post I will try to describe what I saw, and how I felt about what was happening. I do not have any sense of an overview, and nor do I claim to. I was only there from 5.00 am to 11.00 pm, with a short interruption at midday, and from 1.00 pm to 4.00 pm to file some images, and close my eyes for 30 minutes. I could not have possibly been everywhere at the same time. It was generally not possible to know what was going on even 100 meters away.

The attack by police started at about 6.00 am. At the time I was in the area held by the People’s Alliance for Democracy (PAD). As soon as I saw the police forming for an attack I left that area and placed myself at the front of the police lines. I felt safer there because I knew that in order to disperse the protesters heavy force would be deployed.

Police had one of their loudspeaker lorries and first issued a warning that protesters should disperse as they would be attacked, and teargas would be fired. Police constantly mentioned that in this conflict nobody could possibly win, that they were all Thais, and should not fight each other.

The protesters did not disperse and soon after the attack started with a barrage of teargas grenades.

It started from both Ratchawithi Rd. and Pichai Rd. (where I was). I saw teargas grenades blowing up with strong explosive power when they got caught in the tires of the barricades. Some tires even flew a few feet into the air. Protesters quickly ran off, and I followed police in just after the first lines. There was a bit of hand to hand fighting, nothing too severe, a few handheld teargas grenades were thrown (I guess so, I am not an expert on such things) by police. Also the few remaining PAD protesters threw some explosives, maybe firecrackers or their own ping pong bombs. In all the rush and the smoke it was very difficult to see exactly what was going on; biting teargas blinded nearly everyone.

Also very few police officers had proper masks, and were just as affected. During all the time the loudspeaker from the police asked protesters to stop fighting. Soon after the protesters stopped, and sat down on the road, and police achieved their goal of opening the gate.

That was when I was made aware of the badly injured protesters. One man was sitting, with his left leg blown away at the knee, folded beside him just held by a few strings of skin. He was surrounded by shocked police officers; some tried to comfort him. There were two or three other badly injured protesters around.

WARNING: The next picture is graphic and may disturb some readers.

Soon ambulances picked him and the other injured people up. In Government House was an injured radio journalist, his back partly exposed, bleeding and heavily burned. A Border Patrol Police officer comforted him.

Things then calmed down. I spoke with several police officers over the injuries. They were all shocked. The grenade squad explained that under certain circumstances the grenades can have high explosive power; when, for example, people are tightly packed close to each other.

I spent some time in the area, sat in the Parliament building, and then went to the Rathchawithi/Samsen crossing, where PAD had gathered by this time.

After a while, maybe at around 10.00 am, I went to Metropolitan Police headquarters, just around the corner from the Royal Plaza. Just as I arrived, PAD staged an attack. They had thrown ping pong bomblets (maybe teargas) into the compound and at police. A barrage of iron balls and marbles were fired by slingshots. At one point a short burst of what I believe were bullets passed around me (the noise of the projectiles passing was very different from the slingshot projectiles). I hid behind a car, and was hit by a steel ball in the stomach while I phoned Nirmal Gosh from the The Straits Times.

Teargas was also fired by police.

In a short lull I followed the retreating police into the Metropolitan Police compound. Things then stayed quite, and soon I left for home to file images. By that time the police had given up the area around parliament to the PAD.

In the afternoon, I got a call that hostilities had broken out again, when police had to reopen the door to Parliament at Rathchawithi Rd. I came from Ruamchit Rd., and straight away I was caught up with PAD under a barrage of police fired teargas grenades, trying to repel a PAD attack. One of those grenades landed maybe a meter or so away from me while I ran, and exploded with a tremendous noise.

I finally made it through the lines to the crossing held by police (one grenade was fired at me when police mistook me as a protester, but stopped after I managed to repeatedly shout that I was a journalist, and held up my camera).

I spent until nightfall at that corner. Police had to protect this corner to allow civil servants, employees and MPs to leave Parliament. The crossing was under constant attack, iron balls and marbles were fired from slingshots, and police repelled attacks by firing tear gas grenades. At times at the corner projectiles were fired at the police from the Ratchawat Institute as well.

The police asked PAD hiding in surrounding buildings to leave. They shouted that they would do nothing to departing protesters, and I saw several that came out and were left alone by police. A surreal situation was when a friend of mine – a Special Branch Agent under cover with the PAD – also came out of one of those buildings.

Later, the situation was incredibly tense. Teargas grenades went off all the time; there and around the corner near the main entrance to Parliament. At one time PAD started to drive a lorry towards police at Ruamchit Rd., Police hurriedly erected a few barricades and fired teargas grenades directly at the lorry. Just in time it could be stopped, and taken by police.

I have photographed a police officer who got injured when PAD, after firing handguns around the corner at parliament building, and was run over by someone in a purposely aimed pickup truck.

Tales came out of Parliament that PAD shot three police officers, they were in the Parliament building, and PAD refused to allow ambulances in.

During all the time people came running along the crossing from Parliament, escaping the area.

At nightfall, when this corner finally calmed down, I went to Metropolitan Police headquarters, which came under constant attack by the PAD. Police used teargas, PAD slingshots, constant clacking of the projectiles at police shields and the pavement. This time fortunately I was not hit. Apparently occasionally guns were fired by PAD as well, yet I can’t say for sure. It was very scary, several other attempts by cars and lorries driving towards the barricades were repelled.

At one point there were one or two more protesters with severed legs, but I missed seeing them myself. I have only seen the pictures by one local photographer.

And, like before, things calmed down a bit, only to start again. At one point police were finally able to retake the barricades at the corner of Royal Plaza. There was a pickup truck stranded that tried to drive into police. Police pulled out two people from the back, and roughed them up a bit. Another injured woman was folded over there on the street. There were picked up by military medics.

Then an army Humvee drove by to observe the situation. It stopped briefly at the police lines, and continued to Royal Plaza.

Things started to be under more control from about 10.00 pm. PAD had much smaller numbers, mostly young people. After a while a man in combat camouflage, an active or retired soldier on the side of PAD, came to the barbed wire and briefly negotiated with police.

Police answered that they would stop firing teargas if PAD would stop firing slingshots and stop their attacks; that they were only reacting to attacks.

Things stayed calm from the on, only a hundred or so PAD were visible at Royal Plaza. I went home.

There is now a discussion about excessive force by police, and of course the use of teargas. From what I saw, I believe that the police had no other choice. Blame it on the miserable police budget that they had no less lethal teargas grenades, but not on the police officers on the ground that day. Police had to do with what they had available and that, in this case, was only equipment from Russia.

Were the injuries caused by explosives carried by PAD? I honestly have no idea. I only know that some PAD protesters were throwing explosives.

In this showdown PAD has used lethal force and if the police did not use teargas then this situation would have degenerated to hand-to-hand combat. And that, I am sure, would have cost many people their lives, on both sides. PAD had a few handguns, one or two police officers have been stabbed by flag poles. So, one would not like to imagine what would have happened if there was not the distance between the sides created by the teargas grenades. I doubt that any police officer intended to maim anybody but this day was a day of very few choices.

What some people seem to forget is the basic situation: the law was with the police, and not with the PAD.

Share this:

117 Comments

– Police had one of their loudspeaker lorries and first issued a warning that protesters should disperse as they would be attacked, and teargas would be fired.
– The protesters did not disperse and soon after the attack started with a barrage of teargas grenades.

– Also the few remaining PAD protesters threw some explosives, maybe firecrackers or their own ping pong bombs.

I like your report. It is exceptional in that it presents both sides fairly. Too much reporting here is led by a cheerleader press corp that reports only one side and seems to suppress the the other. http://www.prachatai.com/05web/th/home/13987
had photos of a policeman being ran over by a truck. Andhttp://www.oknation.net/blog/tyty1789/2008/10/08/entry-1 had a picture of a police officer with a handgun. He was ready to fire it and a supervisor came over and had him put it away. One of the newspapers had the picture of the officer with the gun but did not show the supervisor step in. That same newspaper editorialized about the tragedy of the guy loosing his leg but suggested that no one was warned about the impending tear gas attack, and condemned the police for not announcing it in advance which from your account is not correct.

The police are the agency that society gives the authority to use violence to deal with violence, it looks like the police did as good a job as can be expected under extremely difficult circumstances. It is really sad to see the cold blooded nature of the attack on the police officer who was ran over by the Pickup Truck.

I hope that Thailand steps back from the brink and allows the elected to govern and if they don’t like it, seek a solution in the ballot box rather than in the street–otherwise we will have continued anarchy in parts of Bangkok led by a succession of people with different colored shirts.

Excellent contribution! Given the dismal performance of the Thai newspapers, we rely on such articles for more accurate information, even if Nick does not have the backup to place all this into an overall picture.

“What some people seem to forget is the basic situation: the law was with the police, and not with the PAD.” >> This was even completely forgotten by the deans of many law faculties, including Thammasat (Somkhit Lertpaitoon), Chulalongkorn, and Sukothai Thamathirat (Khomsan Pokkhong, another drafter of the 2007 Constitution, besides Somkhit). These people had the guts to issue a long statement, printed in Sondhi L.’s Manager newspaper, insisting that the PAD actions at Parliament were a legitimate use of their constitutional right of freedom of assembly. One really has to pity Thailand for having such a nonsensical academic elite…

Most obviously, the PAD was fully prepared to physically fight against the police to achieve its aim of blocking Parliament (many countries have laws declaring the areas around parliament a neutral zone), and many of them were armed with a variety of weapons. They resisted the police order to disperse, and later even actively attacked the police on many occasions, as mentioned in Nick’s report.

This article is the best i have read regarding the riots or whatever you want to call it. It is really sad that one can only read biased news in Thailand. It totally put my opinion into perspective. Thanks for that.

There is a lot of discussion on Pantip about the man whose leg got blown off, with many claiming he was an amputee with an artificial leg, and speculation that the injury was probably caused by storing ping-pong grenades inside the artificial leg. A bit surreal, but then again, a lot of what both sides are saying is unbelievable.

Good balanced reporting but I think the police and the government need to take responsibility for the use of what seems to be tear gas grenades that can explode with lethal force. It is hard to believe they had never tested these weapons and didn’t know how dangerous they were. If so, they are guilty of negligence anyway, as they are in failing to equip their men with gas masks before a gas attack. They also had much safer American made tear gas at their disposal and could easily have restricted themselves to that. Chinese made weaponery is at any rate normally purchased only to provide big kick backs to top brass not for use, whereas army and police generals know well they need low kick back, high quality American weaponery to actually do the job. The police are lucky they didn’t lose arms in throwing these lethal bombs.

Also suspicious is the use of Border Patrol Police untrained in riot control, instead Metropolitan police units that have theoretically received some basic training in riot control. This also happened in the 1991 massacre, as police chiefs are more confident that BPP men from upcountry, many of whom have never been to Bangkok before, will take orders to fire on Bangkok crowds than city police. BPP habitually patrol with M16s and are accustomed to a para-military role on the border. Therefore use of lethal force comes easier to them.

The attempt to run over a policeman lying on the ground and the use of fire arms by protestors, if they did, are also reprehensible and totally unacceptable.

At one point I saw a PAD guard drive a COACH down Ratchawiti towards the riot police then at the U Thong intersection. My first thought was “this is complete lunacy.”

Fortunately I was nowhere near the front lines at any time, and managed to always stay out of bother.

When the police advanced down Ratchawiti towards the U Thong intersection the police line (Bangkok units) behind us dispersed to allow a safe exit for anyone who wanted to leave. Very wise.

But I can’t say that I saw EFFECTIVE POLICING by the forces who were advancing up the road.

After their first advance the police could have secured the area – as demonstraters had dispersed in fear of the tear gas.

The PAD guards were forced back as far as the side entrance to the Dusit Zoo. The police could have formed secure lines on Thanon Phichai, and Ratchaweti but because they were affected by their own tear gas (few police wearing gas masks) they didn’t.

The police action did not appear to focus on controlling and containing the situation. There didn’t seem to be a strategy to preventing further PAD responses or the tactical competence to enforce any strategy.

What depressed me most was

1. The naivity of many PAD supporters who were wearing inappropriate eye masks, mouth cloths and tee shirts, believing they would be safe, and not realising how dangerous the situation could become.

2. Seeing PAD guards armed with slingshots, golf clubs and so on. And when the PAD gaurds rolled paddy wagons, what I would say would be “normally law abiding citizens” joined in, without consideration for the consequences.

3. Not seeing the police focusing on containing, controlling and using snatch squads to arrest key trouble makers.

Once again, thank you for your account as it helps my understanding of what was happening on the “front lines.”

– Police had one of their loudspeaker lorries and first issued a warning that protesters should disperse as they would be attacked, and teargas would be fired.
– The protesters did not disperse and soon after the attack started with a barrage of teargas grenades.

– Also the few remaining PAD protesters threw some explosives, maybe firecrackers or their own ping pong bombs.

These line are what was left out from the thai “main stream” media.
======
The reason for these lines are left out because it is not true.
These have been investigated by thai media. All ask questions to police why not warning , why not do this ,why not do that and a lot of things before attack.

Sorry that I can not finish this reading because I feel that this report are not accurate since the beginning.

Slingshot yes, golf club yes, heavy stick yes, but up till now. There is no even a single picture proving that PAD has a firearm or an explosion. However, there are more evidences coming out all the time that Police or anti-PAD kept on lying.

Hoax 1: The man has no leg before and he use the red juice to lie to people that his leg was cut during an incident. This is a hoax. Already proven. This guy is serious injured in the same time still trying to protect the woman behind him. The news just don’t show the picture before his legs was flipped under uncut part..

Hoax 2: The guy sit crossing his legs have something in his left hand that look like a ping pong bomb, but on his right hand is seriously injured. This is also a hoax. This guy is a street artist who worked to feed his family of 2 young children. He drew a portrait in the protest area for 100THB each. The doctor who took care of him already confirm that he was holding a leather key ring. Now.. his left hand is cut of, his windpipe is seriously damaged .. that seems he won’t be able to speak for the rest of his life.

Stupid Hoax 3: Before the police admitted that it was a police who holding a gun. Thai police spoke man said that it was someone who dress up like a police. And now, the police said that he was trying to shoot a 4wd Cherokee crashing into police. This is also a lie. You can see a video clip on youtube. The 2 incidents happen in different occasion. That policeman really point a gun to protester and stopping when his fellow policeman shout “Camera!”, funny .. that he also said he is a driver that he needs to protect special mob breaking equipment so he is permitted to carry a gun.

Bad Hoax 4: The police spokeman said that the lady who died may nipping an explosion with her. (carrying between arm and chest). but the doctor already stated.. that the wound is so serious. It caused from the impacting with a very hot item from in front of her chest. (Her whole chest was gone)… The lady who died graduated from the Assumption University. Her whole family joined a PAD campaign. She has a plan to marry next year.

Fact 1: The police use a shotgun shooting from inside the parliament.. this clip can be found from a youtube.. It has been recorded by Euronews camera man.

Fact 2: It is true that there was a mini truck crashing into a police and hurt some of policeman. But you should understand that this happen after the bloodshed incident in the early morning. The protesters really have nothing else to protect themselves.. And the leader can’t control this. People with anger have to decide to do something.. not just being done by brutal police alone.. I didn’t say this is a right thing to do… but you should try to understand the whole incident as well.

Fact 3:Police didn’t follow standard mob breaking procedure. They don’t negotiate, they don’t use a loud speaker. They don’t come in with their club and shield.. They just started firing/throwing a tear gas bomb and some identified explosive grenade. This is heard from several medical team who worked in the area. The police also fired at a medical team as well. The guy fell over and stood up again trying to continue his help other people.

Fact 4: Some police fired at PADs like they are getting to win a Counter Strike or such (so happy face).

Observation 1:Any bloodshed incidents in the Thailand history, there is no single person responsible for this (e.g. sent to jail). And I think Police think that they can get away with this again like in the past.

This is a fair coverage, but you should also report the after event. what have been found and covered.

I am in another country and could not get accurate account of the situation due to many reasons. Anyway, even if I were in Bangkok, it would still be hard to get any accurate report. From what I read on online media and webboards, most people did not know about the situation you’ve seen such as

– Police had one of their loudspeaker lorries and first issued a warning that protesters should disperse as they would be attacked, and teargas would be fired.

– The protesters did not disperse and soon after the attack started with a barrage of teargas grenades.

– Also the few remaining PAD protesters threw some explosives, maybe firecrackers or their own ping pong bombs.

as mentioned earlier.

I just hope the situation gets better pretty soon, but it seems unlikely.

I agree with the multiple posters that complain that the Nation is very
biassed toward the PADs message…

is this because your reporters are too scared or fat-arssed lazy to
actually get out in the streets and write their own stories…

the PAD are supported by the media-savvy manager group who know the value of instant press releases… I assume the Thai media finds it so comfortable to receive these releases, quickly do some minoe edits and publish as their own reports… is there a media council or somesuch in Thailand that investigates un-attributed stories?

but my main concern is that the government seems very weak in supporting its police:

the prime minister seems overly cautious and apologetic

the prime minister should immediately state that the government decided to clear the protesters quoting the relevant constitution and legal authority

he should respond to claims by saying he believed the police behaved entirely reasonably in the circumstances when confronted with heavily armed and equipped protesters, they erected barricades with (illegal?) razor wire and were armed and supported by loud speakers and support logistics

he should state that the events on both sides will be investigated and charges laid against any officers or protesters that committed offences

I think if the PM and the government give the police real public support then they will be empowered to clear the crowds, arresting the ring leaders as they go

and, the media might be more willing to be involved and at least report both sides if the government issues press releases along to support the governments public statements in direct competition with the PAD and opposition

It seems that my article is now in the midst of the propaganda war. I can only repeat that there was a loud speaker car of the police issuing warnings. There were no negotiations, obviously. PAD had erected barricades, and did not intend to move out. Right after the warnings the police moved in.

Of course some blame has to be laid on the police. Police in Thailand are simply not as experienced in riot control as police in countries such as in Germany, where rioting happens every other week. But it should be noted that in countries like Germany rioters do not carry firearms. And of course in western countries the police are far better equipped.

I am still convinced that the police did the best job they could have done. No PAD supporter has been shot by firearms, to my knowledge: very different from ’92, ’76, and ’73.

I wish that the incident of 7/10 would not be exaggerated to the point of comparing it with the aforementioned incidents. This will help nobody, and will only cause more anger, and more bloodshed.

PAD had carried weapons such as sticks and slingshots, there is no doubt about this; also at least one PAD protester was filmed with a handgun. Three policemen were wounded by gun shots. Claims that PAD members did not carry guns are as ridiculous as claims of the extreme fringe of other side that the people who lost limbs were already amputees.

Khunying Pornthip’s investigations seem to have confirmed that the teargas grenades were indeed responsible for the horrific injuries.

And large part of the responsibility should be also carried by the BMA which refused requests by police for firefighting cars to use as water cannons on the grounds of the dirty water might pose a health risk to protesters. No more comment needed…

The police are now getting all blame. I have received reports that in Central Thailand many incidents happened after 7/10 with police officers attacked, even beaten up. I wonder if the instigators who purposely radicalize the situation for their own short term goals realize what long term damage is done if Thailand’s police force is dismantled the way it is done now. Every attempt of improving the force is being squashed.

I do thank the people who feel that my report is trying to be as neutral and objective as i was able to. And I hope that the people who are angered by my report will not be a risk for my or my family’s security.

This is a very difficult situation to work in as a journalist. Objectivity is a very difficult thing, especially now. There are so many aspects to consider, and interpretations of current events need to be influenced by historical, social and many other very confusing aspects. Much of what goes on nobody really knows fully, and for everyone this is a huge learning curve.

Working now is getting increasingly dangerous – the obvious dangers are the escalating incidents of violence, but I am more scared of getting on the wrong end of the stick in this propaganda warfare – one can’t make it right to everyone, and one side is bound to be pissed of with what one publishes.

Nick, thanks for bringing us this report, and thanks for sticking to the facts of what you saw and heard down there.

I understand you’ve got your own feelings about the matter but you’ve done a great job at keeping them out of the article, so as we can see, that leave very little opening for people seeking to dismiss or put in doubt the raw facts that you expose. We can see the commenter above has to resort to discrediting other stories instead of yours.

So thanks for keeping us updated on what is happening only a couple kilometers from my doorstep – it’s amazing how normal the rest of Bangkok can be, under the circumstances. And please be safe, I have a feeling that that march on the police HQ could be very nasty, even postponed.

Great job sir.
Everytime when i read Thai news from Internet; newspaper or even in Television i have to divided the truth by 50%.
What i mean is i do not beleive what ever they said on the new anymore it is rediculous that they all blame the police and the government.
This goverment are eleted by the people from Thailand.
It is a sad new to all of us that a small group of people are doing this to their country they must have a very good back up otherwise they can not do this.
If you let this small group of people doing this or let them run the country you can might as well says good bye to Thailand.
A large group of silence people are waiting and watching this closely
just hope that this silence people do not come out and do something bad to this smalll group of people it will turn to be a great disaster.
Just hope this would not happen.
I really want to know whose is behind all this…..sometime I do wander?
Keep up the good work Nick I am behind you 150% buddy.

CS grenades are not supposed to explode! They burn and give off the gas. I had enough experience with them in the military to know that. Unless, of course, these were Thai made and somebody “improved” them a bit. :p

Nick, I am not sure that the police force is being dismantled or that its commanders taking some the blame for their botched riot conrol operation is going to squash any attempt at police reform.

The Thai police is commonly perceived by most Thais to be rotten with corruption from top to bottom and involved in every type of criminal activity from shaking down motorists to drug running to murder. Accountability seems solely to the pyramid structure whereby every one pays to the next level up for promotion and then a monthly rent to keep the job. Sure, there are some good apples too but the pyramid is so deeply entrenched that they get bypassed for promotion and cannot change much.

There have been several attempts in recent years to reform the police and make them more accountable to the public they are supposed to serve, including the Surayud government’s effort that ended in nothing, despite the fact that the plan was supported by the military and the odds initially seemed loaded against the police being able to maintain the status quo. I would say that, on the contrary, the only chance of reforming the police would be as a result of public disatisfaction with the service they receive from their tax money spent on law enforcement swelling to a point that it can no longer be ignored by the government of the day.

Queen to meet PAD leaders (the PAD called off the protest at the Police headquarters to attend Angkana’s cremation)?

HM the Queen to preside over cremation of Angkana
By The Nation, October 13, 2008

HM the Queen will preside over cremation of Angkana Radubpanya-avut who was killed when police dispersed anti-government protesters near the Parliament on October 7, Royal Household Bureau said Monday.

HM the Queen will go to Sri Prawat Temple in Nonthaburi with HRH Princess Chulabhorn Valayalaksana to attend the cremation which is scheduled at 4pm.

Angkana, 28, was killed when police dispersed anti-government protesters on U-Thong Nai road near the Parliament last week. Protesters blocked all entrances of the Parliament in an attempt to block Somchai government from delivering policies.

Cause of death of Angkana was still unclear as police claimed they used tear gas to disperse the protesters, but wounds on her body appeared to be severe than because of tear gas.

I would like to apologize you, Nick. I have seen one PAD using a firegun on a video clip. I am investigating it now.

About the loud speaker, people who are at the parliament in the early morning confirmed that they didn’t hear anything from the Police. Majority of people in parliament area on October 7 morning are women. They were sleeping and waked up by a sound of a bomb. There were at least one young PAD (student) trying to negotiate with the police, but the police didn’t stop and just kept on firing continuously. Really, they didn’t expect the police to use tear gas from the start just expect push and pull, or the worst police was expected to use a stick.

In some occasions, the police fired or(threw) one set in front of PADs, and another set to behind PADs like they didn’t want people to escape. This is also what really happened

One person at my discussion forum confirmed that they noticed one mobile equiped with a loud speaker but it was so far away from the crackdown area and the speaker is so small. (It is the one that used for Maha Songkarn Festival)

I will get back to you more on an update.
Nobody, will hurt you and your family, Nick. You shouldn’t worry about that. Please just report on the fact.

Thank you very much. I was very glad when i saw your very tempered criticism of my report on your website. Nobody is perfect, and in such a situation not one single person can claim the whole truth. And i won’t claim that either. That needs a long investigation by qualified authorities.

As to the loudspeaker wagon – it is definitely in the range of the possible that it was overheard. There was not much time space between the warning and the attack.
One of the reasons that i have straight away crossed the barricades from PAD to the police at the impending attack was personal safety. I already guessed that the attack will be heavy, and with teargas, and insufficient escape routes.
Teargas can’t be aimed as closely as guns. I don’t think that police purposely wanted to hinder PAD from escaping.
The reasons for teargas was not to let a hand to hand battle occur. I have been at the Si Sao Thewet clash, and there were hours of fighting hand to hand, without police being able to win any ground, and it only stopped when police has used a heavy teargas barrage, and UDD leaders announced retreat.
PAD on the 7th was much better armed than UDD at that day one year ago, and hand to hand fighting would have been very bad for both sides. And i am sure that there would have been more casualties, especially police officers.

After the first attack in the morning most police officers i have spoken to were shocked about the impact of the teargas grenades. There was not one police officer who was in any way glad about the horrific injuries.
Later in the day, especially after the shootings and the incident with the pick up truck, there was of course a lot of anger to see in the police force against PAD, and there still is. Of course they cheered when a grenade dispersed protesters, the same way PAD has cheered when a slingshot projectile hit its target. That is only natural.
No police officer i have spoken with has enjoyed the fact that such injuries and one dead occurred.
Yet i am not sure that some hardcore PAD guards feel the same way – the day after the UDD – PAD clash one PAD guard has shown me with pride a bent metal bar that still had blood one it, and a piece of skin from a scalp with hair. That was truly sickening.
One of the UDD guards that was beaten to a pulp during that clash is still in coma in the hospital. I don’t see much attention given to this. What is particularly difficult for me is that i have photographed that man just half an hour before the clash while he was joking around.
I also wonder if that injured girl on the photo here on the blog might have been the PAD protester that was killed that day.

Many officers had, and still have, difficulties, to believe that teargas grenades they use could have such an impact. Maiming people is not what they aimed for. They simply wanted to do as ordered – to open the gate to parliament.

I believe a huge problem is the inexperience both of ordinary PAD protesters, and of police in handling such demonstrations (the guards are a different topic though…).
I have grown up in Germany, and we had violent demonstrations every other week. Protesters knew how things will develop, and so did police. And both sides most of the time know when to stop.

Here though i see children and old people at the protest site, and also when incidents are very likely. I have, for example, seen a PAD protester carrying his infant child while the police tried to disperse the protest at the 29th of August, walking around the scene of fighting as if it was a walk in the park.This is insane.
Whatever the politics – such protest sites are nothing for children, PAD protesters should be discouraged from bringing children. It is completely irresponsible to allow children at places of a very high likelihood of violence.

I am only glad that no child on that day was maimed for life. I do fear though, watching the pattern of escalation, that this was not the last incident of violence we have seen, and that the next one might be worse. Because i see the space for compromise disappearing rapidly.

Nick, you are right about this. But many People didn’t think like you Thai Police should have done that quickly right after the crackdown and this is why PADs tried to reclaim casualties’ reputation back, and this is why my poor English web site is there at least trying to do such purpose.

They should have accepted that the war weapon was used in the crackdown. The spontaneous firing from inside the police HQ in the evening which instantly killed one fine lady shouldn’t have happened. But what Thai Police did? They told the press that it was possible for the Thai lady to carry a bomb with her which killed herself. Not counting those pro-Thaksin on the internet that kept on trying to twist the story whenever they can.

And after everything is too late, the chief police ordered two barking police officers to keep their mouth sealed and expressed “deep sorry and apologize” just a day before a national police day (13 Oct), but what for the prime minister? He said “sorry” and continue his bullshit on the latest NBT TV program on the same day.

And what is now? The Queen and her daughter came by themselves to the cremation funeral. The highest honor (first-time in the history?) that a normal civilian family have got such honor..

Who arrange such a military-grade weapon should be responsible and sent to jail. Who fired at people like they intend to kill should be sent to jail. Who ordered the police to do such thing when knowing by heart what would be happening should also be condemned for the rest of their life and sent to jail.

PAD who shot at the police (if he is really a PAD not 3rd party disguised as PAD) should also be responsible for the crime he did unless he can proof that he did that to protect his life or someone else life.. (however carrying a gun around like that is still illegal)

The same rule apply to the Toyota’s case , where a possible driver is now at the hospital and loss one of his eye during the crackdown..

And like you said “that needs a long investigation by qualified authorities.” something that Thai people (not just PAD) always wish but hardly come true.

I very much agree that the responsible parties that have supplied police with these far too strong tear gas grenades should be investigated and maybe prosecuted. There definitely is a clear problem with police budgeting and supplies, and this day was a sad proof why Thailand needs a better equipped police force. I doubt that there would be many Police officers who would dispute that fact.
But officers on the ground had very little choice.

Also BMA, which has refused the firefighting vehicles, has to be held responsible. It is well known that BMA does more than just slightly support PAD, and hinders police work regarding any action against PAD. This has gone horribly wrong on that day.
But so far i have not read one word of BMA regarding this. Why?

The Pamphlet now distributed by PAD – “Damluat Kah Prachachon” – is very strong agitation, and extremely one sided propaganda. Photos selected there are not evenhanded information – not one image of the injured officers, such as the one where the police officer is stabbed in the chest, or the sickening incident of the pick up truck.

I was also very surprised to find General Amnuay Nimano being pointed out there in this pamphlet. I have many times talked with him over the last few years at different incidents, and known him as an unusually friendly, unpretentious and open Police General, very different from many others of his rank.

The more distance i get to this day, the more i am convinced that this day was a chain of events that went very wrong, but not “Police killing the People”.
The ones responsible for budgeting and equipping Police have to take responsibility.
BMA has to take responsibility.
PAD has clearly went a step too far by blocking parliament and erecting barricades, and have cornered the state. The PAD leaders that have ordered this must take responsibility.
This was bad planning – they should have known that such an action is legally on more than fishy ground, and that the state at some point must react.

I do feel very sorry for the ordinary protesters who got maimed, and the girl that lost her life. But i feel also very sorry for the injured Police officers who have done nothing but their duty. I would like to see such sentiments expressed by PAD as well, and also an open condemnation of its members that have injured those officers.
Such might be the first step for reconciliation.

I am sure they do, even some PAD leaders, they really think about that, but what have happened so far is the government has not been frank to them. Please read this article “Ten Most Popular Questions which PADs are bored answering“. I have done my best to translate it to English some weeks ago. And then look at the ugly cabinet. Look at the policy of renting national park. Look at the 6000 bus project. Look at how the proxy government do nothing with the lese majesty web sites on the Internet. Most importantly look at Somchai’s face on latest announcement in NBT.

…

It is very important that majority of PAD protesters really believe in peaceful demonstration, that’s why they join the protest from the first place. There are several ocassions that PAD leaders changed their decision to avoid a clash with the red shirt. If they really believed in violence, they should have encouraged PAD to confront with the red shirts. There are a SantiAsoke and a Thai monk giving a dhama talk for the protesters. There are concerts, Chinese opera, Poetry Performing, and other Art Performing. Have you ever seen a protest like this in other countries? This is why there are more and more people joining the campaign. As you said, several parents took an infant child with them, some took a pet. Didn’t they do it because they thought the place was safe for their children? Protesting had been very peaceful until the anti-PAD group marching down the street (didn’t they look drunk to you?) trying to start a war. I am sure you can now notice less children after the police crackdown. Because some parents realize that it wasn’t safe for their kids anymore, but they still do support by donation, or praying for their fellow PADs. You can find lots of interesting to write about the red shirts too (have you ever done so?)

You mentioned that you have talked to some polices after the event. Probably, you may try to find some PADs to speak with as well. I believe there are many people wanted to talk with you, express their feeling about why they were there. I was in the back line seeing many people joining and joining including a mature man in shirts and slacks (like those people from Silom) Why they have to do this and that. and I really believe they think that the decision to besiege the parliament on October 6,7 is the right decision. I do think so. Even someone in the Somchai’s cabinet was thinking to change the announcement place, some said it was ok to postpone. But some hardcore in the government still insisted to go on, you can further investigate on this. (Look up for Dr.Pornthip interview). There were also some PAD thinking that they should occupy the parliament like what PAD did when occupying the government house. But the PAD leader don’t want to do that. Ekayuth Anchanbuth of thaiinsider.com mentioned that PAD leader was waiting a military coup but it is also not true. He also suggested that the moment of people revolution has passed (he thought the result would have been better if PAD really occupied the parliament)

You shouldn’t underestimate the heart power of PAD. Although some of PADs were in doubt about Sondhi for example. Some even disliked him. But they thought that this was only the last chance to do something before they couldn’t do anything at all. The way they kept joining the campaign more and more even they knew that it was no longer safe. Even though they know that they can get hurt, they can become disabled… Don’t you know why they keep on joining? Being mass brain washed? I would repeat this again. They thought it is their last chance to fight for the righteousness, fight for their kings and queens, fight for their country, fight for their descendants. I don’t know if this is still categorized under the political subject, but it is more likely to be the life matter for PAD now. Do you know what the dead lady spoke shortly before the moment of her death?

This may sound like another PAD propaganda, I really don’t mean to.. I just want to show respect to those PAD with pure heart. Let the story be heard by the rest of the world. And the time will heal, people will hopefully will be judged for what they did.

We have to accept that PM Somchai is a weak character and none of this would have happened, if he had not been ordered to get tough with the PAD by his sponsor. He seems barely able to cope with the enormity of what he has done and will probably not last long but will probably not be replaced by any one better.

The urban middle classes seem to have outgrown the pattern of rule by corrupt politicians interspersed with brief periods of military rule and want something a bit closer to Western style democracy where politicians are held accountable for their actions and go to jail for corruption. They are fed up with politicians regarding politics as a business where you invest more than your competitors to gain power and earn huge returns looted from the taxpayer.

Unfortunately a badly paid, corrupt, poorly trained and undisciplined police force that is solely accountable to central government is something that suits the corrupt politicians very well. How could they function with a bunch of well trained, efficient, clean cops with good packages and benefits investigating political corruption all the time?

What happened on 10/7 is the natural result of this bankrupt political system. It will keep happening until there is real political change resulting in accountability for both politicians and police.

democratic elections, one person one vote, systems dont absolutely
guarantee good governments but democracy does limit the damage, because
every so often the MPs have to be accountable to the people

the US is an example of poor governments, the scandinavian countries and, dare I say it, Australia are examples where the governments are
reasonably good

apart from the elite that wont let go, its the institutions that support the democratic system that seems to be the big issue in Thailand, and to an extent the US

the legal system must be strong, its judges must be insulated from
political whims and be guided by precedent where every court must
reference previous decisions to ensure long term consistent decisions… the Legislature (parliament) makes the laws, the legal system enforces and administers the laws

the bureaucracy, police and military must be under policy and financial control by the civilian government and all should be strongly supported by the government so their morale is high and they can perform to the best of their ability

a constitutional monarchy is preferred to a presidential system
(republic), because, as in the US, if a president is elected then he can
claim authority from the people and be superior to the parliament, this is the crux of the argument in Australia about becoming a republic… noone wants a president that can control the parliament because of the horrible US example

Thailand was on the right track, sooner or later Thaksin would be
rejected and the government would have opened up to other players,
meanwhile Thailand gained from his energy and nation building capabilities

I agree with most of what you say David, particularly the need for a strong legal system. Thailand’s judicial branch has traditionally been extremely weak and prone to corruption and manipulation. Being a judge is a career chosen soon after graduation by young people with the right connections, unlike in Anglo Saxon judicial systems where judges tend to be successful baristers or trial lawyers who have earned strong reputations already and have usually saved enough money to be less susceptible to bribery i.e. they have a lot to lose. Of course there are also no juries, which would be vunerable to bribery and intimidation anyway, and cases are usually heard a day a month rather than consecutively and judges may change several times during the trial, so that a judge who missed major parts of the trial may pronounce judgement and sentence.

Thailand’s legal system is also unfortunately not based on precedent at all. It is a Roman/European legal system that is based on individual judge’s personal interpretations of statutory law with no obligation on them to refer to precedent. Many recent cases seem to have ignored precedent e.g. the Constitutional Court found Thaksin not guilty of asset concealment in 2001, having found Sanan guilty of the same offence under not dissimilar circumstances a week earlier. The decision to adopt this type of legal system was made under Absolute Monarchy, probably for good reasons at the time, but it may no longer be very suitable for the present day. Now it would be extremely difficult to overhaul the legal system and switch to an Anglo Saxon precedent based system, although it may in fact be worth the effort. At any rate judicial reform would have to go hand in hand with police reform to be fully effective and neither is in the interests of the corrupt politicians that routinely get elected my the majority.

Whatever anyone thinks about the PAD and its leader are certainly flakey and some of its method are downright unlawful, the ongoing PAD demonstrations provide the judiciary with the background to judge the ongoing political cases solely according to the law without submitting to bribery and intimididation. Looking at the evidence and judgment in the tax fraud case against Potjaman and her associates, the Criminal Court seems to me to have conducted itself in an exemplary manner. This seemed an open and shut case of tax evasion that any court in an Anglo Saxon country would certainly have convicted in and the Thai court cut straight to the point, in a way that would have been unimaginable a couple of years ago. Would this have happened if the PAD had not come on the streets again after the elections? Possibly but I am not so sure.

Objective writing, reporting? No author is objective. They may wish to be, but it is humanly impossible.

Nick’s report is interesting, from his perspective, but it is only from his perspective an vantage point.

Portman’s statements are the best in his whole exchange. He obviously has a keen understanding of the current situation in Thailand.

David Brown, on the other hand, has a poor understanding of the US political system and is obviously neither objective nor informed. A lot of crap has come out of the US government, but not for the reason he stated.

As far as democracies are concerned, none are perfect (if there is such a thing), and it takes years to develop one. Thailand is far from it. More concerning is the present time in history. It is one thing to develop a democracy 200 years ago, but today it is extremely difficult. There are too many people, there is too much media, and with the Internet anyone, no matter how off base or uninformed, has a voice.

Most of the world’s governments are, most unfortunately, in the crapper and nobody seems to know what to do about it. The next decade will be interesting, brutally so, but interesting. There are no, or few, world leaders. If there were, the world wouldn’t be in this mess.

What is happening now is not good for Thailand, and when things get so out of whack a true leader would not have let the conflict with PAD escalate to where it did. The government failed regardless of the politics of PAD.

I wish the Thai people and the future of Thailand the best through all this turmoil. I hope I am both able and allowed live the rest of my life here and die here. I just hope the death part of it is later rather than sooner, and by natural causes, not a civil conflict.

thanks Portman for your comments and particularly on the Thai judges and court operations

I guess with juries there would be much strong requirement to progress and finish cases rather than the rather casual and extended approach you describe… its seems the constitution claims to guarantee citizens the right to timely justice…

the hierarchy of courts which puts lower courts decisions under threat from courts of appeal is also normally expected to increase the consistency and integrity of judges decisions… I note that the new courts created by the CNS seem to free of this constraint which even apart from the unusual laws they administer reduces any faith we might have that decisions will be strongly based on evidence rather than judges emotional or other baggage they may carry into court

and Michael… just to expand a little on my thoughts on the US… with the president comes a whole raft of unelected cabinet and heads of departments that are all appointed by the president (granted, with the approval of the parliament/congress)… perhaps this is where Thailand gets this idea of appointing technocrats to run the government… all anti-democratic, not accountable to the people

as it happens I agree the government has not been strong enough to support the police at the right times… instead of standing up and saying that the police did the best they could in difficult circumstances they always seem to be apologising or trying to shift the blame to someone else…

this seems to be following a grand tradition in Thailand where it suited the elite to have a weak and demoralised legal system that they could manipulate, all the way from escaping from traffic fines to diverting investigations of murder, treason and insurrection

the prime minister should immediately state that the government decided to clear the protesters quoting the relevant constitution and legal authority

he should respond to claims by saying he believed the police behaved
entirely reasonably in the circumstances when confronted with heavily armed and equipped protesters, they erected barricades with (illegal?) razor wire and were armed and supported by loud speakers and support logistics

he should state that the events on both sides will be investigated and
charges laid against any officers or protesters that committed offences

I think if the PM and the government give the police real public support then they will be empowered to clear the crowds, arresting the ring leaders as they go

and, the media might be more willing to be involved and at least report both sides if the government issues press releases along to support the governments public statements in direct competition with the PAD and opposition

David, I guess that in citing the new courts created by the CNS that administer unusual laws and not constrained by higher courts that could overturn their rulings you are referring to the Supreme Administrative Court’s Division for Political Office Holders. In fact this court was not created by the CNS. It and the laws it administers were created by the 1997 constitution which is widely regarded as Thailand’s best so far. The 2007 constitution which was certainly sponsored by the CNS but voted in by national referendum (the first ever in Thailand) made little or no change to these structures, as far as I am aware.

The main thinking behind the lack of appeals against the judgements of this court seems to be that: 1) it would be very difficult for lower courts to try powerful political figures without being influenced by bribery and intimidation; 2) if cases were heard first in lower courts, this is the court that would hear their final appeals anyway.

Maybe this system is not perfect and will be improved in future, if conditions in the country are conducive to strengthening the rule of law. However, bear in mind that the case of Wattana Asavahame who was recently sentenced to prison by this court in his absence took more than 10 years to come to fruition. I wonder how much longer the process would have taken to go through three courts instead of one. Also remember that this is the only court that has ever sentenced Thai politicians to prison for corruption. In addition to Wattana, the former Democrat Party Minister of Public Health, Rakkiat Sukthana, was sentenced to 15 years in prison by this court and is actually serving his sentence.

For me this court, despite imperfections, is the first faltering step in the right direction of making politicians fear that they might have to serve time in jail if they engage in corruption. Without this fear there is no hope that Thailand’s dysfunctional democratic system will ever grow up and be any better than it was in the 1930s or that its economy will ever fulfill its potential to the benefit of ordinary Thais.

firstly I agree that the 1997 constitution deserves respect because of the consultative process and what seemed like good intentions to support rule by democratically elected governments

without sufficient diligence on my part I thought it was the Supreme Administrative Court’s Division for Political Office Holders that now is administering the laws that were created or amended/”strengthened” by the CNS to dismantle political parties and reduce the legal scope of action of democratically elected MPs
and retrospectively apply these laws to convict ex-PM Thaksin and others in his governments

and I assumed the court itself was created by the CNS. were its judges, its scope or just its supporting agencies and the relevant laws that were created/modified by the CNS?

If there were no particular changes introduced by the CNS it rather indicates that the court was not successful in “making politicians fear that they might have to serve time in jail” during the period of the Thaksin governments, or nobody saw fit to exercise its powers then or the new cases are just artificially created by his enemies.

I have copies of the 1997 and 2007 constitutions to hand but will appreciate if you can point me at any documentation on the courts and laws that were created/amended during the CNS period

This is not good for any of the sides! While highlighting the continuing economic and political leaving in the background, looking at things continue like this. We need to redesign a new order with a new vision of the society.

David, The court in question convicted Rakkiat, the former public health minister, in 2004, two years before the coup. I don’t think that the CNS made any changes to these laws involving the obligations of political office holders or got notably involved in the appointment of judges. However, the input of the CNS that was highly significant in this context was the setting up by revolutionary decree of the Assets Examination Committee, chaired by Khunying Jaruvan Maintaka, before the 2007 had been promulgated. The AEC investigated several cases involving Thaksin and associates, including the Radjadapisek land case that will be judged next Tuesday and Potjaman’s tax fraud case in which she has already been convicted by the lower court. The AEC’s term has now expired and its unfinished cases have been handed over to the National Counter Corruption Committee. The AEC’s role was to investigate the cases and turn the evidence over to the Office of the Attorney General to prosecute in the approprate courts, if the OAG agreed there was a case to be heard.

Of course nobody was able to investigate corruption cases against Thaksin or his associates while they were in office. Rakkiat, who did get convicted, was a Democrat Party member. The CNS did indeed change all of that via the AEC but without changing the laws or the legal process after the investigation process. Even the laws about dissolution of political parties and banning their executives come straight from the 1997 constitution. Thaksin’s big gripe and the reason he is pushing at all costs to have the constitution changed relates to a fine legal argument about the extension of the AEC’s term after the promulgation of the 2007 constitution, not about its original establishment which is clearly legal under a revolutionary decree after the 1997 constitution had been abrogated. His argument is the that AEC didn’t have the authority to continue investigating him and turn its evidence over to the OAG after its initial term had expired. Clearly this is very much a form over substance argument that holds little merit. He cannot challenge the laws under which he is charged or legal process of the OAG or the courts. He can only argue that the investigators’ authority to continue investigating had expired, although he cannot disptute that it was in place for most of the time they investigated him. In his wife’s case the lower court has already convicted on the evidence provided by the AEC which makes his argument even weaker. He cannot argue she didn’t commit tax fraud, as that would be contempt of court. He can only argue that the incriminating evidence should have been collected by some one else for some of the time it was being collected.

Remember that the reason that no one was able to investigate corruption cases involving Thaksin et al, while he was in power, was that he systematically dismantled all the checks and balances in the 1997 constitution to make it impossible for action to be taken against politicians in power. The NCCC was disbanded on technical grounds and the Auditor General, Khunying Jaruvan, was also suspended on obscure technical legal grounds. The judiciary was also interfered with, vis the 2001 assets concealment case against Thaksin, as was the Electoral Commission.

The CNS, despite what one may think of them and the flabby Saruyudh government they installed, deserves some credit for pushing forward the rule of law by making it possible for corrupt politicians to be investigated and prosecuted according to the laws and institutions put in place by the 1997 constitution. But don’t forget that the person who first reminded the Thai judiciary it was supposed to have a backbone was HM the King who advised Constitutional Court judges in 2006 that their role was first and foremost to look after the nation’s interests. Soon afterwards the Constitutional Court turned the tide of the political stalemate by annulling the results of the 2006 election due to widespread electoral fraud and convicted three electoral commissioners of malfeasance.

Even without the AEC in future it is to be hoped that the judiaciary and rule of law have both taken a permanent step forward and that politicians will indeed be fearful that criminal acts may land them in jail but I am not holding my breath.

QUOTE “Two years ago about 20,000 people marched on the Privy Council home, under the banner of NorPorKor. The protesters were protesting the Privy Council because they believed the Privy Council engineered the coup of the KorMorChor (Junta, 2006-7 CNS). The protest was peaceful-no guns, bombs, and stick such as the recent PAD protesters carried. As the protest continued, the police ultimately charged the protesters in an attempt to capture the protesters leaders.

What occured at that point is very much the same as the recent clashes between the PAD and the police-minus the weapons on the NorPorKor side.

>The NCCC was disbanded on technical grounds and the Auditor General, Khunying Jaruvan, was also suspended on obscure technical legal grounds.

“Technical grounds” and “obscure technical legal grounds” = Law. A Thaksin supporter would use the same trivializing terms to describe some of the cases against his side. Surely the recently announced matter of Somchai W.’s “dereliction of duty” in 2000 falls into that category.

>The judiciary was also interfered with, vis the 2001 assets concealment case against Thaksin, as was the Electoral Commission.

Yes, the 2001 assets concealment case was very suspicious. Why wasn’t the alleged interference pursued by the AEC or NCCC?

>Soon afterwards the Constitutional Court turned the tide of the political stalemate by annulling the results of the 2006 election due to widespread electoral fraud and convicted three electoral commissioners of malfeasance.

Turned the tide they did, but does anyone suggest these are cases of good law? The 2006 election ruling was at least as murky as that in the 2001 assets concealment case. (And to talk about “widespread electoral fraud” in the boycotted 2006 polls is more than a mild oversimplification of history.)

And the conviction of the three election commissioners was scandalous — it was patently clear they were prosecuted only because they wouldn’t resign to clear their seats for more pliant people.

Amberwaves, Khunying Jaruvan was suspended as auditor general for something to do with the way the short list for her appointment was drawn up by the Senate. It was not due to anything she herself had done. The NCCC was suspended for voting itself a pay rise without following correct procedures. This was something they were indeed responsible for, although the amounts were fairly trivial. The reasons for both suspensions were clearly, not because anyone cared how many people were in the room when the Senate drew up the auditor general short list or that the NCCC unfairly got a miniscule pay rise but because corrupt TRT politicians didn’t want either institution to investigate corruption cases against them. Moreover corruption cases, where the state had lost billions of baht, went beyond the statute of limitations due to the NCCC’s suspension. TRT was hardly using its popular mandate for the benefit of the nation.

Somchai’s indictment for dereliction of duty while permanent secretary for justice seems perfectly fair. He failed to take action when his subordinates deliberately didn’t collect a $2 million legal execution fee. The NCCC only indicted him for negligence not malfeasance and as such he is not debarred from being prime minister. This story has not suddenly come up. It has been in the news off and on for some years. Perhaps it is unfortunate for Somchai that the NCCC passed on its recommendation while Somchai is PM but he should have thought about when he decided to take no action over the missing $2 million bucks of government money.

The alleged interference in the 2001 assets concealment case partly involved the appointment of a friendly judge at the last minute who had not attended most of the hearings, who voted despite an earlier decision by another judge that he could not vote on another case in which he had missed most of the hearings. But more importantly it seemed to involve the feelings of some judges under pressure that they could not stand in the way of the people’s choice. This seemed to influence them into effectively abstaining by voting that there was no case to be heard, despite the fact that the court president had previously determined that there was a case to be heard and instructed them to vote accordingly. Of the judges that didn’t effectively abstain the majority voted to convict Thaksin and, if the effectively “spoiled ballot papers” were counted as abstentions, history would have turned out differently . Legally I don’t think the NCCC or the AEC had authority to investigate court verdicts and there is also a contempt of court law in Thailand that forbids even criticism of court verdicts, probably even our posts here. Also some of the blame has to be taken by vagaries in the court’s procedures.

I think the 2006 election ruling and the convictions of the electoral commissioners were perfectly just. Are you sure there was no electoral fraud involved and that the three commissioners didn’t aid and abet it as charged?

At the bottom of this is the conflict that cannot be solved. Do elected politicians, once elected with a comfortable majority, have the right to be above the law and loot the national treasury to their hearts content with no accountability or checks and balances? Or should Thailand try to develop the concept of rule or law? Personally I think that implementing rule of law and accountablity from the top down will eventually lead to a much more meaningful type of democracy than the ridiculous vote buying sham we have now.

Portman-Your reply is again thoughtful and substantive, but I’m afraid that we just see things through different eyes.

Re Jaruvan and the NCCC, the point was, ill-intentions or not, the measures against them were matters of law, as you seem to concede.

Re Somchai, a failure to take action is very much a judgment call, isn’t it? I know it’s a stretch, but aren’t you saying that the authorities should have failed to act in the Jaruvan and NCCC cases?

Re the 2001 assets concealment case, you had said “The judiciary was also interfered with…” but the details you provide don’t convey that very well, and give instead a much more nuanced account than what was originally implied.

And you say “But more importantly it seemed to involve the feelings of some judges under pressure that they could not stand in the way of the people’s choice.”

Couldn’t we now just substitute “the Highest Institution” for “the people’s choice” to describe the situation since HM’s famous 2006 advice, and especially since the coup? Is one case “interference,” but the other not?

This may simply involve a conceptual/cultural difference between us. I lean toward the Western concept that the courts are supposed to serve justice, while you cite HM saying “their role was first and foremost to look after the nation’s interests.” The matters are not necessarily congruent.

As it happens, I’m sure there was electoral fraud in the 2006 election, but I’m also sure it did not markedly affect the (inconclusive) results.

As for the three election commissioners, they seem to have been convicted of exercising their free judgment, which was of course their job. Or perhaps they were guilty of not yielding to outside pressure. My memory may be faulty – and I stand happy to be corrected – but I don’t recall any evidence being presented that they were suborned.

It would be wonderful to have the rule of law be supreme here, but selective and opaque justice – consider some of the recent rulings involving the PAD – is not a very promising way to promote it.

Nick, thanks again for your report on the 7 Oct incident because it is useful for us English-speaking people who often can only depend on biased newspapers like The Nation, which is clearly pro-PAD. If one understands Thai, one can get all kinds of media sources (both print and electronic) to get the fair coverage of any given event.

However, has anyone noticed now that The Nation has gradually lost its credibility among the English-speaking people here ? Have you noticed that there are many unsold copies of the Nation in the bookstore while there is none left for Bangkok Post ? I have refused to buy hard-copy Nation for about 2 years now and I prefer to buy/read the other English newspaper in town, which has more balanced and credible news in addition to its excellent supplements about the entertainment world. Keep up the good works, Nick.

1. The warnings with loudspeakers remain disputable from PAD side. Moreover, the police did not negotiate first. Unlike dealing with Cambodian. Perhaps we do not speak the same language!!!
However, the police constituted of three events, early morning, afternoon and the evening one. The reporter was not present at all sites, at all times. He was present at 6:00 am first raid.
Obviously, the police did not warn for the shooting in the evening when protesters were marching back to the government house and Miss Angkana was killed.

2. Does Nick Nostitz speak Thai? If he does certainly he may understand what he wrote about the police’s warning.

3. Nick Nostitz report does confirm that initially there was no violence by the PAD side and that there was at least a friend of him being a police-undercover hiding among the protesters. (by which a conspired situation might have been created )

4. Nick Nostitz admitted that he was not an expert of firearms. How could he conclude that the police may not have other choice to deal with the situation?

Has he ever known, apart from the Tien An Men / China (where they used military weapons and tanks) where in the world that the police had dealt with mobs and ended in lost of lives from police tear gas firing, 400 injured, immediately lost of legs, arms, hands and eyes.

5. Would he know that the police violated the standard guidelines of tackling riots that is to use stepwise application of riot combat measures from soft to harsh, before firing the first tear gas canister.
Perhaps those loud speaker lorries definitely used very effectively to disturb the rally before at Makkawan bridge or strong water cannon from firefighter trucks could have dispersed the crowd.
Later, if failed, rows of police in full riot gears with their shields and clubs could have pushed the protesters away like when they used before with UDD riots 2 years ago in front of the President of the Privy Council house and on August 29, 2008. By using the police troops, they could have pushed the protesters far enough to pave way for the MPs and the PM without a single drop of blood.

6. Would Nick Nostitz know that particular types of firearms are not to be used for city riots. Automatic rifles and .357 pistols were seen and recorded on VDOs and photos at the scene together with border police troops and special execution Arintharaj antiterrorist units which have been trained to kill rather than to deal softly with mobs. Obviously, they fired directly to the crowd. Initially, some shots chopped off big bushes or blew up the piles of car tyres straight away could have warned the police from the very beginning to stop using such dangerously fatal firearms. However, perhaps Nick Nostitz was not at the right spot to have seen the blast effects avulsing people’s limbs or he was so badly affected by the tear gas so much that he did not notice the direction of the barrels of the police rifles aiming directly to the crowd and the executional shots which the police aimed.

7. Nick Nostitz confirmed that apart from “a few” pistols claimed to be shot from PAD, other weapons which PAD might have, were makeshift and not well organized (for self protection against outlaw red UDD because police had several times ignored UDD’s attacks on PAD) are not comparably effective in killing as to those police’s automatic weapons. Would Nick Nostitz know that the police did not arrest any of protesters for such illegal possession of weapons? Were the police ordered just to shoot-to-kill?

8. Nick Nostitz said at the beginning “In this post I will try to describe what I saw, and how I felt about what was happening. I do not have any sense of an overview, and nor do I claim to.” However, he decided differently at the end to conclude with his lack-of-overview and sore-eyes opinions “In this showdown PAD has used lethal force and if the police did not use teargas then this situation would have degenerated to hand-to-hand combat. And that, I am sure, would have cost many people their lives, on both sides.”

How could he make a reasonable conclusion if he does not see the overall on-going escalation of the violence against PAD as carried out by tyrant puppet governments under Thaksin. The police was tactically successful when raided on PAD with hand-to-hand combat with clubs and shields and had torn down PAD’s stage on Rajdamnoen Avenue without firing a single shot before on August 29, 2008.

How could Nick innocently miss Thaksin’s tricks leading to the country’s turmoils to fulfill the asylum grant? Even, on that single day Nick missed the point that it was the police who used the unneccessary lethal force first. Therefore, the laws as well as the righteousness are on neither the government nor the police side. That is why the police and PM Somchai have to be continuously twisting the words as already recorded in the media.

Amberwaves, >This may simply involve a conceptual/cultural difference between us. I lean toward the Western concept that the courts are supposed to serve justice, while you cite HM saying “their role was first and foremost to look after the nation’s interests.” The matters are not necessarily congruent.As for the three election commissioners, they seem to have been convicted of exercising their free judgment, which was of course their job. Or perhaps they were guilty of not yielding to outside pressure. My memory may be faulty – and I stand happy to be corrected – but I don’t recall any evidence being presented that they were suborned.<

As the late Chatichai Choonhaven loved to say whenever he and his ministers were accused of corruption before his “fast food cabinet” was pushed aside in the 1991 coup, “Show me the receipts”. Although no receipts were ever produced, the convicted EC commissioners were clearly in his pocket. Perhaps the receipts were washed away in that famous trip to the Sydney casino with a Thaksin trustee.

You say nothing of the political corruption that persistently dooms Thailand not to fulfill its economic potential and reached new dizzy heights under the Thaksin regime. If not through rule of law, how do you propose this should be eliminated?

jonfernquest has said, again, that misunderstandings are due somehow to NM and something the presumably means the Western press: “New Mandala and the western systematically avoids publishing almost anything about Jaruvan’s work.” I am not point-scoring here, but this is an odd view to say the least.

First point: why should NM act as a newspaper or a site of record for Thai politics? This is unreasonable.

Second, which western [media] are “systematically” avoiding reporting Jaruvan’s work? If this refers to the international media, one wonders how such a charge is made when almost everything Thailand is very limited and editors would need to ask who would be interested in the machinations of deep Thai politics. But I suspect that jonfernquest means the Bangkok Post and the Nation. I have been saving articles from these papers that mention Jaruvan, and there are quite a few over the past few years.

Of course, jonfernquest might want more, but there has been plenty of reporting of her (even the short Wikipedia article on her lists more than two dozen reports from the Nation and Post, and there were 40 mentions of Jaruvan my press clippings for Oct 2006 alone). Not all of the articles provide full information on her work, but there does not appear to be any systematic attempt to not report her work.

And, the reporting in the Post and Nation are generally highly positive of her and her work, which have been highly controversial and caused considerable debate (again, look at the reports for Oct 2006 as a sampler). Nor are the reports short on personal detail about her, including her belief that god (the Roman Catholic one) is on her side.

If anything, most recent reports have been rather too sanguine on Jaruvan. For example, one thing that does seem to have been let go for a while is the charge that her house under construction is valued at far more than she claims. The recent apparent arson attempt at the house showed a house that is obviously way in excess of the paltry amount she claims it to be worth. Before someone says this is minor, think of Samak and his 80,000 baht on the cooking show. Jaruvan’s misquoting of the value of the construction far exceeds that.

In my view, the problem with Portman’s statements above are that they are sometimes inaccurate and based on a memory of events that may not always be accurate and that is sometimes coloured by political hopes rather than reality. For example, on the rather important matter of her role on the AEC, Portman states: “Assets Examination Committee, chaired by Khunying Jaruvan Maintaka” – as far as I can tell, at the time, this is incorrect. I could be wrong, but my search for this information produced one statement of her having led the AEC in 2006, and this seems an inaccuracy in Wikipedia. It is this inaccuracy that causes misunderstanding, along with a biased reading of the cases involved.

Certainly, there has been plenty of reporting of this feisty if flawed campaigner.

Well done Nik. Some good photos and interesting comment. Gutsy of you to remain in areas near the turmoil after copping a steel pellet to the tummy.
Just re some of the criticism of The Nation and local papers: I think people make too much of their “bias”. I’m sure Nation group bosses want to put out a decent newspaper, but the company has had serious financial problems of late. They had debt of over 3 billion baht, which forced the sale of their tower (head office in BangNa Trad), and a hotel in Hua Hin, and debt is still about 1.7 billion baht, I believe. That forced it to reduce its staff numbers substantially, both Thai and foreign, reporters, photographers and subeditors. Many people were laid off from July 31 (from the English paper; their Thai papers Kom Chad Leuk and Krungthep Turakij are healthy and profitable). Thing is you can’t have such major manpower changes with an impact on content, particularly when you are dealing with copy that is translated – when time is limited there are more weak links in the chain, if you like. Subeditors can rectify a lot of bad or weak reporting, but when they have a lot of stories to do (as they do now compared to a few years ago when it was surely a better paper than the Post), you don’t have the time correct everything. And with reporters – even senior reporters – writing in poor English, that time is much needed to fix stories.
On a day like October 7, the paper’s main error, if you like, was not reporting the police warning to protesters to disperse. Nik heard that, but obviously many PAD did not. I think The Nation reported there was no warning given. Given the comments by people on this blog, it sounds like the warning was not loud and there was only a relatively short period of time before the teargas shells were launched. On the other hand, Nik guessed what was coming. But many protesters claim they didn’t.
Another factor in regard to the group’s “bias” is the stance Nation bosses such as Suthichai Yoon took during the last Thaksin administration. His argument was there comes a point when damage to the country is such that one has to do more than just report objectively. His company and the Nation newspaper has paid the price of that decision but it strikes me as hardly surprising given the sort of tactic Thaksin’s government was using to intimidate, muzzle and distract the press. The massive lawsuit launched against the Post over its runway cracks story (which appeared to have some merit) and the rally staged outside the Nation building are just two examples that come to mind.
On the other hand, the paper could have done more to boost its credibility by reducing the amount of commentary it carries. The Chang Noi column by Chris Baker and his wife Pasuk is perhaps the best in any paper. Magnificent at times. Yet their are others who are rabid anti-Thaksin bores; some people like that, but it’s not everyone’s cup of tea. I believe the Nation Group is looking for a foreign news group to partner them, and I hope they get a firm with a lot of experience, and a little cash to help them boost staff numbers again. The paper has a proud history and it is obviously struggling more at present, but it can be reinvigorated with some fresh blood and editorial experience. I think Thailand and the region really needs two English papers. Even people on the Post admit that they need the competition to stop them becoming slack and lazy in their reporting. It’s not just Thailand – look at the countries all around – Laos, Cambodia and Burma. There is probably a wealth of untold scandals that need to be revealed. Only Cambodia has a vibrant press. Indeed, the Phnom Penh Post looks quite impressive now that Dunkley and Clough (Perth men linked via investments in Burma such as the Myanmar Times) have taken over. Maybe they should get on board at The Nation and give it a similar infusion of quality staff. They need to have the cash to pay people such as Nik for reports such as he has done here. But they also need some farang in senior positions, as at the Post, cos the current format isn’t working for foreign readers. And one of the problems with The Nation was the myth that the paper was read mainly by educated Thais. At the end of the day it’s an English language paper and very few Thais have the finesse to be good writers in English, especially to standards that foreign readers want.

Somkid, >Fact: The Princess donated 800,000 Baht to police stating that the money was from the King.<

Still haven’t seen this report, although it was reported that HM the Queen donated Baht 900,000 to three hospitals, one of which was the Police General Hospital. It was also reported that HRH Princess Chulabhorn extended condolences to Miss Angkhana’s family on behalf of HM the King.

Ed Norton, I disagree that perhaps mistakenly identifying Khunying Jaruvan as chairman as the AEC, rather than chairman of one of its committees, has resulted in an utter misunderstanding by myself of the work of the AEC. I see this logic as akin to Thaksin’s argument that, if it can be proved that the AEC was unconstitutional during a minor part of its tenure, then the evidence it produced during the whole of its tenure of plundering the nation on a grand scale by Thaksin, his wife and his cronies is no longer true.

I m Thailand women, I want all person read and understand about this tragedy send to your friends know more and more….please…..Thailand may go to scourge and die if Taksin still not cashed and his colleagues still be powerful ิัby law.
The people must to be success and free from them. I love my king and real trust all people love King Phumiphol because he have been sacrificer for people and the Nation all his life, I have seen all my life. So we dont want to change the democracy be the United nation and dont want someone who’s live in London come to be Thai President on his mind, he havent match coz he dont love The Nation and people. That’s enought!!!

I am unsure just how to respond to Portman and stay within the NM guidelines for I am tempted to engage in unimaginative point-scoring to counter idle abuse, but let me try.

In my response on Portman’s post at #49 I explained that Portman “sometimes inaccurate and based on a memory of events that may not always be accurate and that is sometimes coloured by political hopes.” I provided one example of that: that Portman had mis-stated Jaruvan’s position as chairman as the AEC. I did not claim that that one identified error (quite an important one) “resulted in an utter misunderstanding by [Portman] of the work of the AEC.” I was merely making a case that in matters such as legal cases, one might want to be careful with the facts.

To then accused of using a “logic as akin to Thaksin’s” is not just missing the point but is entirely misleading regarding the points made in my post regarding Jaruvan. If Portman is to be taken seriously, then Portman needs to at least attempt to get the facts right. This is not always easy, for as I pointed out, even Wikipedia got this one wrong. To rely on memory is not good enough in these matters.

To then demand facts of Somkid in the same post while not demanding a similar rigor in his/her own posts is a bit rich.

I am not going to take up each and every point in Portman’s posts, but just one more for a bit of fun. Portman states: “I think the 2006 election ruling and the convictions of the electoral commissioners were perfectly just.” All well and good, but there are other interpretations that probably deserve more attention. For example, then Senator and lawyer and soon to be AEC member Kaewsan Atibodhi, no friend of Thaksin or TRT, was reported as being taken aback by this decision, calling it a “judicial hijacking” (“Thaksin in the Dock” by James Vander Meer, Asia Sentinel, 9 Aug 2006). Was his logic Thaksin-like as well?

“Chuck,
You should have warned people those pictures are disturbing. That was sick. Looks like war in Bangkok not very “Enlightening”.
You Jerk ”

I am from the USA and I appreciate the honest graphic depiction of the TRUTH. In the USA we are so removed from this type of violence we start to see reality as a unreal, we cannot accept it, it is just the news, so we do not feel deeply as we should.

I think the Supreme Administrative Court’s Criminal Division for Political Office Holders is to be commended for a very sound and just judgement yesterday. Clearly it was a serious conflict of interests for a prime minister’s wife to buy land from the FIDF and the the court cut straight through the flabby technical arguments put forward by Thaksin’s defence. Nevertheless the court was very fair in not convicting Thaksin of corruption and giving him a relatively light sentence. He could be out in less than a year for good behaviour. The court was also very fair in acquitting Potjaman and not confiscating the land or the funds used to purchase it.

Let’s hope the Thai government will procede quickly to lodge a cogent case for extradition with the British authorities in respect of this case and Potjaman’s tax fraud conviction, in spite of the current premier’s conflict of loyalties.

Portman, this seems like the wrong thread for this, but let me get it straight, especially as I am yet to read the full judgement, and I take it that you have because you conclude that “Supreme Administrative Court’s Criminal Division for Political Office Holders is to be commended for a very sound and just judgement yesterday.”

From what you say, there was a conflict of interests for a prime minister’s wife to buy land from the FIDF. Therefore the court was not in a position to convict Thaksin of corruption, but they gave him a relatively light sentence for… what? At the same time, the court was fair in acquitting Potjaman and not confiscating the land or the funds used to purchase it. Does that mean taht the sale has been allowed and completed?

Is that all correct? If so, can you imagine why others think the decision sounds strange and contrived? What’s missing here? There must be more to the decision.

Ralph Cramden, The NCCC Act prohibits political office holders and their spouses from transacting business with state agencies for obvious reasons. The FIDF is a state agency (that among other things administers assets purchased with taxpayers’ money from failed financial institutions.) Thaksin knew that his wife was bidding for the land in the FIDF’s auction and failed to prevent it. As prime minister and husband of Potjaman he had a duty to prevent this breach of the NCCC Act. Since he did not, he knowingly facilitated a violation of the Act and was found guilty of a conflict of interests and negligence. He was not found guilty of malfeasance or corruption, which would have drawn a heavier prison sentence up to 10 years, because he did not purchase the land himself. Potjaman was acquitted because she was not a political office holder and, as such, was not under the jurisdiction of the court. Since Potjaman herself did not commit a crime under the jurisdiction of the court, there were no grounds to confiscate the land or the funds used to purchase it. Possibly the FIDF will initiate legal action to have the transaction annulled and recover the land.

Potjaman should consider extremely herself lucky that she did not fall under the jurisdiction of the court. Otherwise, she could have drawn a much heavier prison sentence than Thaksin and the land and the funds used to purchase it could have been confiscated. Hopefully the loophole that spouses of political office holders cannot easily be prosecuted for their violations of the NCCC Act is one that future constitution drafters will plug. That is not to say that the NCCC Act is not a huge step in the right direction in setting out a simple legal framework for the enforcement of minimal standards of behavior by political office holders.

Portman: Thanks. That gives me a better idea of what went on. Still seems odd that a law that prohibits political office holders and their spouses from transacting business with state agencies ends up being interpreted as negligence. Is there no other court that could rule on Potjamarn breaking the NCCC Act?

Ralph, Good question and I have also been wondering if another court could hear a case involving the NCCC Act. One would have thought the Supreme Admin Court should have refused to hear the case against Potjaman and let the OAG refer it to the criminal court. I am surprised the court has apparently created or accepted a legal limbo whereby she has apparently broken the law but can’t be tried.

There are similar problems in the Klong Tan waste water treatment plant case where accomplices of Watana Asavahame will probably avoid being tried completely because the Criminal Court referred their cases to the Supreme Admin Court which is unlikely to hear them because the suspects were not political office. The cases are stuck with the OAG appealing the Criminal Court’s decision and the statute of limitations will expire soon. Unfortunately I don’t think the OAG has done the obvious thing of letting the Supreme Admin Court rule for itself whether it can hear the cases but this may be intentional, in order to let the suspects off the hook.

Going back to Thaksin’s asset concealment case in 2001, it was also problematic that some judges effectively abstained by ruling there was no case to be heard because the concealment took place when Thaksin was not in office. The final judgment doesn’t seem the appropriate moment to rule on whether the defendant should have been tried at all or he or she has been tried in the right court. Perhaps this is an idiosyncracy of the Thai justice system.

The Investigation of Human Rights Protection Subcommittee under National Human Rights Commission found out that….

At 06:15 (the first police crackdown)

“Interviewing with the eyewitnesses particularly the media revealed the following. The police officers, before firing the teargas canisters to disperse the crowd at Pichai T-junction opposite the exit gate of the House of Parliament, did not give any warning to the rallying crowd.”

Same as firing at 16;00 and 19:00

The subcommittee also concluded that the act of police violated human rights and laws,…….and the National Police Office and the government must be responsible for this.

The Thai National Human Rights Commission functioned from July 13, 2001 until 19 September 2006, when it was closed after the Thai military seized power in a coup. From its inception to May 31, 2005, it received a total of 2,148 complaints of which 1,309 had already been investigated, 559 were still in the process of investigation, and 209 were in the process of gathering evidence. These complaints covered not only civil and political rights but also other spheres of rights including economic, social and cultural rights….

Saneh Chamarik, chairman of the Commission, defended the coup, stating in an interview: “ I do not think [the coup] is about progression or regression [of democracy], but about problem solving. ”

@ Vorapoap > Saying no warnings were given at 7pm is utter fabrication. I have been lurking on this site reading the blog and am very interested in the constant fabrication of stories (by both sides ?)I watched the events at 7pm live on Thai channels, NBT and TNN ( i was flicking between the 2). They had a male reporter with the police behind the line when the protesters first approached with their trucks (2) The police maintained their line and a senior ‘looking’ police man was talking through a loud speaker, this went on for almost 30 minutes before the protesters came very close to the police line and the front line of the protesters were all masked, wearing motorcylce helmets and had large baton/sticks, some were clearly provoking teh police with verbal assaults. The senrior ‘looking’ police man appeared again and DID warn that tear gas would be fired if protestors did not move back immediately, this was not their first warning, within 60 seconds the protesters were not moving and they were clearly trying to create aggression, suddenly a large padlock was thrown from the protesters side at the police and seconds after tear gas was fired. Funnily enough the tear gas worked, the ‘illegal’ protesters were dispersed, when they tried to regroup and come back at the police more gas was fired, during the dispersements many protesters were throwing objects at the police, the police did NOT rush the protesters, they stayed behind their line. after a few minutes the scene returned to normal (?) the reporter picked up the padlock and showed it to the camera, this was what caused the gas to EVENTUALLY be fired AFTER MANY WARNINGS and repeated agressive behaviour by the protesters.
The back and forth of aggression met by tear gas continued for around 20-30 minutes before an army humvie arrived, my wife explained that the Army had been called in to support the police as they were clearly out numbered. What happened next must have completely destroyed the morale of the police, the army soldiers, all very young indeed, immediately when running over to the protesters with stretchers and first aid kits to assist them !?!?!?! What about the injured police ? Why did they help these people breaking the law, ignoring police instructions to move away from the police line ?
I have no sympathy for the protest organisers, unfortunately i believe that the majority of protesters are either being paid or have been badly manipulated.
Rule of Law Thailand, thats all that really needs to be said, Politics should be on hold whilst Rule of Law is restored to the streets and citizens of Thailand, the police should be supported, the protesters moved to appropriate grounds to protest and their movements limited unless prior authorisation is given.

I personally know of people being paid 800 baht per day to work as guards at the PAD site, i know of protesters working for 300-400 Baht a day (it used to be 200 but since the violence they are being paid more), they are bussed in for free and receive 3 meals a day plus the cash, do they know what they are doing ?

Restore the Rule of Law, once thats done then politics can resume, negotiations, reconcilliation, but now is the time to act, restore law and order to the streets and people of Thailand.

Without severe action this will still be ruining a great nation this time next year.

now I hope someone recorded video of these broadcasts and the channels should… its proof we and the authorities need

what I am reaally concerned about are the revenue being collected by Sondhi… someone reported the following:

PostToday on this in March of 2006. His media empired milked it quite well. Manager Newspaper reportedly sold roughly 150,000 copies per day at B15 per copy. That’s B67.5 million per month. The CD “Muang Thai Rai Wan” sold 500,000 copies at B79 per. That’s B39.5 million more. The short sleeves T-shirt “We Fight for the \\\ //////” sold no less than 100,000 pcs at B150 per and long sleeves sold roughly 200,000 pcs at B200 per. That’s another B35 million. The pocket book “Muang Thai Rai Sapadah” sold roughly 100,000 pcs at B190 per. There’s B19 million more. About 5000 ASTV satelite dish at B10,900 per dish per month. That’s another B54.5 million per month.

so he will be making at least this again… so why will he be willing to stop?

No 73 ‘s Comment about Saneh Chamarik, chairman of the Commission’s advocation of the coup does not have anything to do much with a dozen of the whole subcommittee 1 who made this official report.

PM Somchai joined ex-PM Samak the advocates of Thammasat Massacre Oct 6, 1976, who later became the Minister of Interior of a junta government.

Moreover, PM Somchai’s cabinet has one of the member of the military coup, i.e, Pol. Gen. Kowit Watana as the Minister of Interior who directly look after the Police and dispersal of the rally on Oct 7.

Still I have doubts on how much really Nick understand Thai language. Would it be enough to make him understand as much as he claimed what the police had warned?

OR what Nick heard was just the police’s announcement to call for the readiness for the police rows to get ready to fire

Was Nick present to testify of his hearing of the Police warning in any interview in the NHRC subcommitee?

@Softfarang – “I have no sympathy for the protest organisers, unfortunately i believe that the majority of protesters are either being paid or have been badly manipulated.”

This I know to be a falsehood – there are many, many protestors who are there simply because they are tired of the constant cycle of money politics. My brother in law is one of them. No one has paid him and he has not been badly manipulated – he is simply fed up with the same excuses being made by prime ministers only interested in filling their pockets and abusing their power.

BkkOptimist you are right. Many of my mother in law’s friends have spent a lot of time at Government House in support of the PAD. They are ordinary middle class Thai Chinese house wives and small business owners. They are self sufficient financially and have absolutely no interest in being paid in a few hundred baht a day for their support. They are just sick to death of self serving politicians getting away with anything from murder to corruption and stealing their tax money.

if the PAD wins corruption will be worse… like it was after the coup
and the CNS people and their backers including academics got rich, without doing anything useful for the country except try to close it all down…..

Thaksin makes money by being a smart and lucky businessman… the
military and traditional rich make money from corruption like illegal
titles to property in a national park, lottery rake off, drugs, logging
and the other things that Thaksin cut down on… which is why they hate him so much…

Transparency International noted that public corruption was less
under the Thaksin democratic governments than previous

intrinsically, democratically elected governments have to be less corrupt than nominated governments…

democratically elected governments are accountable to the people

who are nominated governments accountable to?

check corruption in the CNS and governments previous to the 1997
constitution… as they say, “where are the receipts”.. there arent any
because deals are done on the golf course so Sondhi and his mates can
conveniently ignore them

I think your relatives and friends think they can be more free to run their businesses any way they wish under the traditional governments so maybe they have their personal reasons for wanting a return to the previous inequitable rule…. we can respect this… it will influence their vote… but they must also respect the majority of Thais who want to move forward to better opportunity and equity for all!

Thank you for illustrating the other, less commented-upon side of money politics.

“…ordinary middle class Thai Chinese house wives and small business owners…” have the time and money to go to high-profile Bangkok demonstrations, and be politically mobilized. Visibility=leverage.

Working class and rural people, who well might have a different political opinion, can not so comfortably do so. Their main opportunity is at the voting booth. It’s difficult for them to take part in a movement, at least one that catches attention in Bangkok.

Some people, such as the Assembly of the Poor, think the best thing to do is to empower the powerless. Others – the PAD and friends – rather weaken them by making their vote worth less.

Amberwaves, It is a fair point that urban middle class people have their own resources that enable them to attend high profile rallies in Bangkok, whereas poor rural people can only do such things if transport, food and per diems to make up for lost earnings are laid on for them. On the other hand I don’t notice the same depth of political feeling when I visit northeastern villages and don’t believe that most farmers are highly politicized. At election time you see almost exclusively TRT/PPP posters in the villages but farmers do not seem particularly interested in politics. Villagers openly admit that they sell their votes and vote the way the pooyai baan tells them to. They are happy to get the money and scared not to vote for the person they are paid to vote for because they believe that the buyers will be able to look inside the ballot box and see who they voted for. Their lives are intertwined with the political canvassers who are also the Thai Chinese millers and merchants that control the rice trade and there is not much point in trying to go against the system. Conversations about politics around election times usually revolve around who is paying how much for votes where and nothing much about parties or policies. What is very obvious though is that there is a picture of the King and Queen in each and every rural home.

Raising the standard of rural education is probably the only long-term solution for Thai politics but this is unfortunately and for obvious reasons the last thing that either PPP or the PAD would like to see.

No, i have not been called as a witness by the investigation of the National Human Rights Commission.
I am aware that my name has been forwarded by several people, and i have relayed that i would be glad to testify in any official investigation, but for my own personal safety i do request that this will be done through formal channels and the German embassy. I am accredited as a foreign correspondent in Thailand, therefore it is not difficult to contact me through formal channels (as was done already, but not by the NHRC subcommittee).
Given that my account has had far more coverage than i have expected, i am sure that any commission investigating this incident is aware of what i wrote here, and it is their decision to call me as a witness, or not.

anti-thaksin says: “No 73 ’s Comment about Saneh Chamarik, chairman of the Commission’s advocation of the coup does not have anything to do much with a dozen of the whole subcommittee 1 who made this official report.”

I pasted the Wikipedia in, so ask Wikipedia, not me, about the significance. My question (again): is the NHRC a regularized and legally constituted organization? It was canceled under the royalist-military junta. Has it been reconstituted with new legislation?

Portman-
>”Raising the standard of rural education is probably the only long-term solution for Thai politics but this is unfortunately and for obvious reasons the last thing that either PPP or the PAD would like to see.”

I understand the conventional wisdom on why this would be the last thing the PPP would like to see, but since this “problem” seems to be at the heart of the PAD’s New Politics proposals, I’m puzzled: Why would they share that position? It isn’t obvious to me, unless one assumes serious cynicism on their part.

Portman says: “On the other hand I don’t notice the same depth of political feeling when I visit northeastern villages and don’t believe that most farmers are highly politicized.”

I have been involved in various activities in the NE for more than 25 years, and I can only think that Portman visits another NE. Villagers in the NE are highly engaged in politics. This is true historically and presently. There is ample evidence for this in reports by academics and (for the historical period) from US analysts who tried to wean the NE off a politics they didn’t like.

Portman says: “At election time you see almost exclusively TRT/PPP posters in the villages but farmers do not seem particularly interested in politics.”

This was certainly not true in the southern NE in the last election. It was true for the election in 2005 and less so in 2000.

Portman says: “Villagers openly admit that they sell their votes and vote the way the pooyai baan tells them to.”

Villagers do say that the sell votes, but they also say a lot more than that. One village that I looked at carefully during the 2007 election did not vote for who the phuyai suggested. I think if you look at some of the academic studies you’ll find other stories. Andrew walker has done this for the N and Somchai P. did a bit in his piece in the Journal of Contemporary Asia. But, the pattern in the NE is now very mixed on both vote-buying and the role of phuyai and other village notables.

Portman: “They are happy to get the money and scared not to vote for the person they are paid to vote for because they believe that the buyers will be able to look inside the ballot box and see who they voted for.”

This is not correct any longer. Again, the academic research shows that this is an old and outdated perception.

Portman: “Their lives are intertwined with the political canvassers who are also the Thai Chinese millers and merchants that control the rice trade and there is not much point in trying to go against the system.”

This may be true for the central region. It is not much true for the NE. A study that suggests these kinds of linkages is that by Arghiros, but this is not about the NE. I haven’t seen any research or reports of this in recent times in the NE.

Portman: “Conversations about politics around election times usually revolve around who is paying how much for votes where and nothing much about parties or policies.”

That may be correct, but I am not certain. In the village I watched last election, villagers complained about a lack of information about policies because the junta had restricted information flows to villages.

Portman: “What is very obvious though is that there is a picture of the King and Queen in each and every rural home.”

They do although the meaning and significance of this cannot be taken for granted.

Portman: “Raising the standard of rural education is probably the only long-term solution for Thai politics but this is unfortunately and for obvious reasons the last thing that either PPP or the PAD would like to see.”

Why blame education or lack of it? Sure, the system isn’t great, but the wonderfully educated Bangkok middle and upper class seems not to have prevented corruption in Bangkok. If corruption is really what bothers Bangkokians, they have not shown a particular ability, based on education, to overcome it.

I am not saying Portman is completely wrong, but I think his/her ideas are somewhat dated.

Nick, your note that you have not been invited to testify to enquiries on Oct7 is yet another cause for concern for the processes at work here in Thailand…

I suppose optimistically, its just the committees are loathe to include testimony from a non-Thai

pessimistically, they might not want to run the risk that you could report outside Thailand on the manner or content of their investigations and you might be incorruptible or objective unlike most of the Thai witnesses they might call

it also raises the issue of exactly which witnesses they are hearing, how many are real eye-witnesses? how many are spokespersons for various interest groups with no first-hand knowledge of the events?

if anyone sees the reports I for one would be really interested to know how much detail, list of witnesses, etc the reports include…

Amberwaves, I think the so called elite that supposedly lends its backing to PAD would like the rural people to remain as uncomplaining farmers and migrant laborers. Some but not all of the PAD leaders are more enlightened. The PAD rank and file, being largely middle class city folk of a conservative political hue, would also not see much direct benefit in educating the rural masses.

The top leadership of PPP are wealthy business people of the type that would not want their children to marry an ethnic Thai and who carefully scrutinise resumes to avoid wasting time interviewing management candidates without lengthy last names. Their attitude to rural people is at least as patronising as that of the “elite”. In their businesses country people are docile laborers and consumers. Politically they are a simply means to political power and riches but not an end in themselves. The middle management of PPP are nearly all aspiring business people from the provinces who go into politics purely as a way to further their business interests. PPP is a right wing party that sees politics as a business with targetted returns on investment and populism as a marketing tool. There is no sign that they have made any efforts to improve education or to reduce rampant corruption in the Ministry of Education.

>There is a new update about the mysterious man caught on camera shooting from inside the Dusit Zoo.

OK, I have to say it: this is one of the silliest posts I’ve ever seen here.

Vorapoap. You are a fool. The PAD need muscle to keep their activities on track. They openly carry mostly homemade weapons such as iron bars, and some carry guns. There are numerous witnesses, and some of the guards themselves admit it privately.

The tactic of denying someone is a PAD guard every time he gets caught doing something bad is transparent. You’ll recall that Suriyasai originally denied that the seven dozen people who took over NBT were from the PAD, a fiction that was hard to sustain after they were arrested.

With occasional exceptions, the PAD guards have gotten a fairly free ride in the Thai media. How often do you see mention of the man they beat to death in the September 2 clash with the DAAD? Did you watch any video of that night? Please spare me any rhetoric about the non-violent PAD.

You are totally wasting your time. Your guys aren’t saints, get over it.

amberwave, I just reported what I know from Manager.co.th in a shorter poorer English version for an update on event on October 7. I haven’t concluded anywhere yet that this mysterious man is PAD or not. -Frankly-, I don’t care.. even though, one day the truths reveals that he was really a PAD. He or those carried arms around and hurt other people will be condemned. Not different from those Police who hurt many people.

And not different from whoever who kept firing a bomb into the government house. Do you know? Around 3-4am today, another bomb dropped inside the government house area. BangkokBizNews reports “in front of PAD stage”.. over 10 injuries.. “1 just reported DEAD”

PAD is guilty to commit a crime on acquiring a government house area and block several road, disturbing other people.

But no one is legitimate to fire a bomb or kill anyone by that.
No need to mention about government’s current wrong doings

Sae-dang just spoke to the press that he doesn’t care anymore if his daughter (who live in the next room in the same house) will die in a protesting group.. What kind of person is this?

Admit it, everyone is just a normal person. We are not saints.. And no one here is.

Portman #89: “…rampant corruption in the Ministry of Education.” Any idea where I can get info on this? All I’ve been able to come up with is recent reports on disguised bribes to individual schools, nothing on the MOE itself. Pasuk & Sungsidh (1994) is now well out of date.

So let me get this right. We have a report from the Manager that reports a senate committee investigation by PAD-aligned senators who hang out at the PAD demonstration and speak on the PAD stage and that is translated on a website that openly espouses PAD. There probably couldn’t be any chance of bias in that kind of report. Charles F. hits it – we are getting into legend rather than much else now.

Michael > I am sorry. I cannot give you any evidence of corruption in the Education Ministry but used to know some Thai educational publishers who complained bitterly about it. OK, this is hearsay evidence but corrupt officials wouldn’t post scans of the receipts on the Internet. Maybe this doesn’t matter much anyway, since, as Ralph pointed out, education has not necessarily helped urban voters make enlightened political choices. After all they voted for Samak as Bangkok governor in 2000 and were overwhelmingly behind Thaksin in the 2005 general election, when neither candidate really seemed to offer much to Bangkokians. Perhaps their importance is not their superior education but just the sheer logistical difficulty and cost of setting up a vote buying structure in the metropolis which results in Bangkok voters supporting whatever seems to be the latest fashion.

Portman #96: Thanks Portman. As you say, stories like this – and I have quite a stock of them – must be classed as ‘hearsay.’ This doesn’t mean they aren’t true, of course. It just means they can’t be quoted with real credibility. Mai pen rai!

Congratulations are due to Nick Nostitz for winning 2nd Place in the Spot News category of the Second Annual Foreign Correspondents’ Club of Thailand Photojournalism Contest. His prize-winning photo is of the same subject as the 4th photo on this blog.

Photo of the Year Award (actually 2 photos – the judges couldn’t agree) was won by Surapan Boonthanom, selected from his wonderful 1st Prize-winning Photo Essay on Southern Thai violence.

The competition was judged by 4 world-famous photojournalists, & includes superb work by names like Nic Dunlop & Timothy Syrota, amongst others.

The exhibition will be open to all at the FCCT clubrooms in the penthouse at Maneeya Center Building (near Chidlom BTS ) 10am-11pm Mon-Fri until January 30th. http//:www.fccthai.com

Thank you very much.
Unfortunately i have had no time to attend the event as i have been working around the clock the last days to get some sort of a grip on what is going in this growing mess, so i just read about here when you mentioned it in you comment.

Nick really did a good job providing details of the brutal assaults by Thai police together with a few photos. Unfortunately, it was gonzo journalism.

Of all the photos exhibited here, he failed to provide a single picture as evidence showing the protester’s possession of the ping pong bomblets or the protester’s action of throwing them at the anti-riot police who were clearly well armed & better prepared for the assaults.
How many injuries on the police you see here from these photos? Nick shows his clear bias & low ethical journalism when he described he had to return to the scene after he heard the HOSTILITIES had broken out again. Because English is his native tongue, I can’t imagine Nick does not know the word ATTACK or ASSAULT which was the actual act the happened during that bloody & deadly day initiated by the police without provocation. It just does not make sense that the unarmed & peaceful protesters who had been protesting continuously for months would all of the sudden decided to attack the well equipped & trained killers in front of them! Have you ever thought whether this deadly assault is the only option needed to break up the crowd? Is the assault by weapons on old & young people justified only to allow PM Somchai & two hundred or so lawmakers to enter into the Parliament to make a policy speech?

All of you who praised & cheered Nick need to be ashamed of yourself. Have you compared Nick’s story & pictures with those reported on other major newspapers in Thailand (both Thai & English) on this before giving your thumb up to him & praising him? The enormous amount of money you spent for your education evidently failed to help you become a logical & open-minded person. Based on the supports you have given to perpetuate lies & fact distortions, I also doubt your ability to follow the good teaching of your religion. You guys are not much different than Thai Red Guards of Thaksin & his cronies. The only differences I can see are those Red Guards (Red shirt thugs) got paid for the piece work & they are undereducated.

>The police have now revived the argument that, Angkhana, the girl they killed with their exploding CS grenades was carrying plastic explosives in her bra.

Have they really, or are you extrapolating?

The reports I have read say only that they believe it was not a tear gas cannister that caused her death, because they detected a different kind of explosive. That leaves open a range of possibilities.

Anyone seen any news about the guy who died in the jeep explosion that same day? His death represents 50% of the fatalities for that day, and he didn’t die “in the heat of battle,” yet I’ve seen next to nothing official about him.

Amberwaves:
“However, a specialist at the Royal Thai Police’s Scientific Crime Detection Division, speaking on condition of anonymity, affirmed that the components of a C4 bomb were found on the brassiere and Tshirt worn by Angkhana at the time of her death, which were not components of tear gas.”

Amberwaves > In the article linked by michael in post 104, Central Institute of Forensic Science director Pornthip Rojanasunan, who was quoted without condition of anonymity, made a convincing case that the substance found by police on Angkhana’s clothing could also have been found as a result of her being struck by the explosive component of the tear gas grenades used by police that were design to explode on impact in order to maim and kill in addition to releasing gas. Strangly enough no police spokesman, named or anonymous, has been able to find any trace of who ordered these weapons or, indeed, that the police ever had them at all but had them they did.

Not sure what you mean by “official.” However, a few months ago, Matichon had a half-page article on the crime page quoting from the police’ investigation report. According to this report, the guy died while trying to remove a number of bombs from the jeep. Both hands were apparently evaporated by the explosion; one leg was still in the car, while the rest of the body was thrown on the pavement (quoting from my memory). PAD still considers him a “hero.”

a recent article quoted Pornthip as saying that based om equipment the police had two years ago the police could not distinguish the chemical signature of C4 from the rogue tear gas, the police rebutted and she said thy should have their discussion in court rather than public… presumably meaning the conclusion is not clear cut

and a few weeks back someone said that their was a particular police officer who emerged from the ranks, fired the rogue tear gas then slipped back under cover several times… the police officer was named as a highly regarded special forces guy of some sort…. seems to me highly probable he was setup to frame the police perhaps by our old privy council mate who appears in public with a big smile when his military mates win

The police case might seem a bit more credible if they had not been firing massive volleys of explosive tear gas shells with clear intent to maim and kill and the person alleged to have been carrying a bomb made of plastic explosives had been a hard core PAD guard. Are home made ping pong bombs in Thailand really made from C4 anyway?

It is sad that the adoring farang Thaksinistas are reduced to supporting the credibility of Thai police. Perhaps the nine year old boy killed in Thaksin’s brave war against drugs shot himself too.

There was no “clear intent to maim and kill”. This line of argumentation is lacking logic, and is not supported by fact. If police that day would have intended to kill protesters, why use teargas, and not guns? Fact is that police that day has not fired a gun, not one PAD protester was injured by gunfire. It is though proven beyond doubt that some PAD protesters had a clear intent to maim and kill – three police officers were shot, one stabbed through the chest, and several run down by a purposely aimed pick up truck.
That PAD protesters have been maimed by teargas (and maybe killed, if the initial investigation is correct) has been a massive screw up by police, resulting from lack of training and experience, but especially resulting from weapons procurement problems and budgeting. But this does not equal intent.

What also has to be pointed out, that police has asked Democrat led BMA for water throwers, a request that was refused on the grounds of that the water was not clean enough and could have led to health problems under the protesters.

One of the two PAD protesters killed that day was indeed a “hardcore” PAD guard – a former Police officer who has led the Buriram guards. And what led to his death is rather clear beyond reasonable doubt – he was killed by his own explosives.

“Adoring Farang Thaksinistas” – Absolute rubbish. People you accuse of this, such as me, have been running around during the terrible first two months in the drug war, capturing images, and trying to raise awareness of the killings. Unfortunately at the time the world was so interested in the beginning Iraq war that there was hardly any space in the international media for Thailand’s drug war killings. Which frustrated me endlessly. For more than 6 months after the drug war i stopped taking photos, because nothing i tried to do then made any difference whatsoever. At the time there was unfortunately not the option to present alternative views through New Mandala, and i was not aware of any similar website where i could have done that.

May i remind you that many of us journalists did not suddenly start working when Thailand’s political problems began in 2005. We have also done critical reporting before, and during the Thaksin administration.

What many do forget here is that there was hardly any public protest against the killings, and PAD’s main leaders – Sondhi Limthongkul and Chamlong Srimuang – have at the time still been staunch Thaksin supporters. The drug war killings were clearly not an incentive for the formation of the PAD.

It appears to me, that many Farang supporters of the PAD confuse the issues. The drug war killings were then, and Oct. the 7th was a completely different scenario. Each has to be looked at separately, and factually.

Portman said: …struck by the explosive component of the tear gas grenades used by police that were design to explode on impact in order to maim and kill in addition to releasing gas..

I’m no expert on riot control agent agents, but I have never heard of tear gas weapons designed to deliberately maim and kill.

Can you point us to a reference on that? I’m sure many readers would like to know what sort of company would manufacture such a noxious weapon. Perhaps you can lead the campaign to sanction such an anti-social enterprise.

Oh, and while you are at at, can you tell us what your expert to end all arguments, Dr. Pornthip, had to say about the guy who got blown up in the jeep? Surely his death was of concern to her (and you)? I would really like to know.

I think the analysis by Dr. Pornthip soon after October 7 suggests that the tear gas grenades used were not designed for civilian use. They used RDX, a powerful high explosive, as the bursting charge (which breaks open the metal case and disperses the chemical agent). This suggests to me that they were designed to be used in military assault operations rather than for crowd control. My suspicion at the time was that the officer who had control of the contract to procure crowd control agents bought the cheapest stuff available to be able line his own pocket. It presumably never occurred to him that these things might actually be used! The police were never trained in crowd control techniques. That was obvious from the videos on TV that day. The officers firing the tear gas grenades appeared to be deliberately aiming at people. I’m surprised there was only one fatality.

The fascinating question of what actually caused the death of that Police Lt. Col. who seems to have been blown up by his own explosives will probably never be answered. I believe Dr. Pornthip did conduct an autopsy, but the report has never been released to the public, nor has any other investigative material. It has surely been deposited in the memory hole to protect the populace from being contaminated.

I agree with Roland’s post # 111 except I doubt that the Chinese teargas was designed for use against in military assaults, as soldiers don’t waste time using tear gas, even the exploding variety, against other armed soldiers. They use maximum force available. The exploding tear gas was more likely specially designed to be more effective against rioting Chinese students or peasants than the regular non-explosive type. No doubt the sellers would have highlighted this bonus feature to the police buyers as providing more bang for their buck to justify the purchase loaded with fat commissions. The police on the ground might have been surprised that the tear gas canisters exploded on impact but that apparently didn’t stop them from firing the exploding rounds directly at protestors repeatedly instead of firing a much more limited quantity at the ground which is standard procedure when the firers only intend to gas the victims using non-exploding rounds.

I am also curious to know how the former Police Lt Col met his untimely end, although I recognize that this may never be revealed. But even if he did blow himself, which is quite possible, that would not somehow make the police less culpable of killing Angkhana or their pathetic allegations that she was carrying plastic explosives any more credible.

“1. The warnings with loudspeakers remain disputable from PAD side. Moreover, the police did not negotiate first. Unlike dealing with Cambodian. Perhaps we do not speak the same language!!!
However, the police constituted of three events, early morning, afternoon and the evening one. The reporter was not present at all sites, at all times. He was present at 6:00 am first raid.
Obviously, the police did not warn for the shooting in the evening when protesters were marching back to the government house and Miss Angkana was killed.

2. Does Nick Nostitz speak Thai? If he does certainly he may understand what he wrote about the police’s warning.”

I can only say that one Thai TV station has the footage of the whole event with the head of the police begging politely through a loudspeaker in the evening asking the PAD not to approach any further. But that policeman was attacked by a flag pole landed right in the middle of his forehead. And you can see a bunch of police getting hurt first by those “unarmed” protesters. Everything was capture on video. And you know what, from the very same tape, the PAD only edited the part when the police was kicking the head of the PAD protester who was kneeling next to Nong Bow’s body and posted it on YouTube.

So I don’t think the http://www.antithaksin.com knows what he’s talking about. The tape is still at the station’s library. The footage was not aired. The person who filmed the footage was asked not to cover any protest again. This is the reward for a Thai reporter who risked his life covering the event. I saw the whole tape and I bet the PAD who manipulated this very tape on YouTube has the evidence of this police begging and warning the crowds before. Seeing people spread lies on the websites makes me upset. We all are victims of politics. Don’t make it any worse.

I believe antithaksin. com, when talking about the police not issuing warnings, meant the early morning assault. I do remember having heard the police warning protesters, and announcing the attack. A colleague of mine who was at the time with PAD said he heard nothing. Regardless, PAD did clearly expect the attack. What nobody knew, police on the ground, nor protesters, was that the teargas canisters were that lethal.

You are spot on about what happened at night, the moments before Ankhana (“Nong Bow”) died. Police was in a defensive position against approaching protesters closing in on police lines at Metropolitan Police Headquarters. The fourth last image of my report does actually show Ankhana, which at the time of writing my article i did not know yet. I thought the picture was of an injured protester, and could only confirm much later that it was in fact Ankhana. The other still photographers at the scene photographed two of the protesters who have had heavy leg injures (one of them lost his leg), most likely from teargas canisters. I have missed those scenes as i was too close to the frontlines of the police, and there was no other footage of Ankhana i could find at the time to compare my photos with.
There were two or three cameramen around me when i photographed Ankhana, one of them must have shot the tape you saw.